Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> system that is Debian matter?
Actually, it does make a difference -- we're not in violation of the
GPL for any instance where we're distributing .debs to users of debian
systems.
However, note that we're working on generalizing debian -- there's stuff
like LSB, and various sorts of ports going on that potentially broadens
the audience for our packages.
> Are you, perchance, advocating we keep several (potentially several
> thousand) copies of the GPL on every Debian machine out there on the
> off chance that the end user (despite pointers in the copyright file)
> is unable to get a copy of the GPL? Would it really matter, given
> this end users isolation from the network?
What, you're worried about a measly 18M? That's peanuts on a machine
with several thousand GPLed packages installed. [Ok, maybe that's not
very funny...]
Anyways, optimization should come after correctness, not before.
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:19:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Debian advertises a freely redistributable system, with no special need
> > to read copyrights before redistributing all or part of it.
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:24:35PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> Not exactly. If I upload /bin/ls from my system to a BBS without
> providing source, I am violating the GPL. If I start distributing
> GPL'd .debs without source (whether or not the .debs have a copy of
> the GPL), I am violating the GPL.
Different issue. The GPL appears to claim that you must distribute
a copy of the license with the binaries, even when you ship the source
separately.
> > If we now claim that our .debs are not redistributable without first
> > reading the copyright file, we should post this new claim prominently
> > (for example, as part of our home page).
>
> Well, perhaps we *should* point out that a *lot* of the software we
> provide *cannot* be redistributed *unless* you also provide the
> source. That is, after all, the terms of the GPL, and it clearly
> doesn't match what you seem to think.
Good idea. [There's a good chance we already do this, but I've
not taken time to look.]
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:55:25PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> The doctrine you're citing could have been that the moon was made
> of green cheese for all of the citation you'd done in the past.
> Furthermore, there is still 17USC507b: The FSF may be denied relief
> at all in the case of Debian. It hardly seems right that where a
> statutory limit has been reached, you are prevented relief against
> others. Basically, Debian is now "grandfathered in" because of a
> snafu: EvilCorp is not. Go bother EvilCorp.
That only works if we stopped distributing such things at least three
years ago.
--
Raul
Reply to: